So you claim happiness = full freedom without constraints?!

The natural selection created species that similar in average happiness. They are still alive. The unhappy species - dinosaurs et al. - became extinct.

Biodiversity is the  presence of  biological organisms in a particular region and it is the result of  survival  and fitness of the  populations. It may be evolutionary result fo the plant communities   against all odds. It may be due to Natural selection and finally it leads to happiness in the communities

I stop to believe in natural selection. It's my problem. Firstly, I cant understand its general direction: from simple - to complex (why? what for?). Secondly, biocoenosis. How to survive if your neighbors, meals and even your own genes are "changeable"? Biocoenosis exists in the stable conditions, doesn't it? In other case we haven't ecological crisis. Thirdly, biodiversity. A competition  has always a single winner.  

Yes, the natural selection has created species that differ or similar in average "happiness", those created in, with the creation of new conditions for life. The "happy" species, there are still alive, while "unhappy" species, as dinosaurs et al. have become extinct.

I apologize, but I have a suggestion for you, our colleague, Marcel M. Lambrechts please, put out a picture, because we have time to look through communication and not to each other, at least be known as physical appearance ...

How do you measure happiness in an animal?

Dear Marcel,

Thank you for an invitation. I would like to learn more about this issue from thread you started because I'm not an expert.

Hey, It would be nice to know the opinion from people with different backgrounds!

Dear Marcel, 

Ok. So, from the perspective of the human existence, some of species have a , that they can live according to their wild or natural program and are not vulnerable to extinction by actions of people. 

So you claim happiness = full freedom without constraints?!

Rather with natural or genetic program and without factors of oppression leading to extermination of species. Freedom is good category too.

Yes, it would be nice to know the opinion from people with similar and different backgrounds in different countries ...

Animals with a device versus without a device: who will be the happiest?

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/01/14/wearable-technology-going-to-the-cats-and-dogs/

Thanks for sharing this interesting question from the animal kingdom, Dear Marcel. It is not my area of knowledge and I am here to learning. Nevertheless, I have strong indications to suspect that the natural selection works as a general rule, and not only strictly in biology. With respect to true happiness, it only really exists or worth if it is not associated to any sort of inhumanity irresponsibility or unawareness.

How do you handle inhumanity, irresponsibility or unawareness as causes of unhappiness from an animal species point of view? Some species would be more/less inhuman, more/less irresponsible or more/less unaware than other species? 

Some animals are more kind than other animals, with the same average level of happiness? Too complicated to answer this question, I presume?

Perhaps the level of consciousness is linked to happiness, being more or less aware of what is happening in the environment? Again, too complicated to answer this question given that we have difficulties to assess with precision how animals really think?

Dear Marcel. Again, I do not know much about the animal kingdom. The happiness that I spoke about in my last answer was human happiness. I suspect that the irrational animals do not think much and that is perhaps a good reason for being comparatively much happier (they do not need to care with nuclear weapons, chauvinism, racism or terrorism, for instance).

I think that happiness is the same - the expression  is different . Some people can notice or  feel what make happy other species.

Dear Marcel,

What do you understand as average happiness?

Dear Andras,

What is your opinion?

Dear Marcel,

Answering a question with another question is not your invention. Is it?

Dear Marcel,

To which question?  

Can consciousness be defined (see other thread)?

Dan Dennett tries to shake our confidence that we ever can know what consciousness is. Would you agree with him (see other thread)?

Thus, if consciousness cannot be defined as the most popular answer, can happiness be defined?

Dear @Marcel M. Lambrechts,

You asked: what's your definition of happiness? Research in the field of positive psychology and happiness often define a happy person as someone who experiences frequent positive emotions, such as joy, interest, and pride, and infrequent (though not absent) negative emotions, such as sadness, anxiety andanger (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Happiness has also been said to relate to life satisfaction, appreciation of life, moments of pleasure, but overall it has to do with the positive experience of emotions.

The key to these definitions is that positive emotions do not indicate the absence of negative emotions. A "happy person" experiences the spectrum of emotions just like anybody else, but the frequency by which they experience the negative ones may differ. It could be that "happy people" don't experience as much negative emotion because they process it differently or they may find meaning in a way others have not. In fact, using the phrase "happy person" is probably incorrect because it assumes that they are naturally happy or that positive things happen to them more often. Nobody is immune to life's stressors, but the question is whether you see those stressors as moments of opposition or moments of opportunity.

Regardless of where you are on the happiness spectrum, each person has their own way of defining happiness. Philosophers, actors, politicians, and everybody in between have all weighed in on their own view of happiness. Read some of our favorite definitions below and let us know what resonated with you. 

The ancient Greeks defined happiness as:

"Happiness is the joy that we feel when we’re striving after our potential."

Shirley MacLaine, Academy Award winner, said:

"To be happy, you have to be willing to be compliant with not knowing."

Michael J. Fox said:

“My happiness grows in direct proportion to my acceptance, and in inverse proportion to my expectations.”

Mastin Kipp, the founder of Daily Love, said:

"I don’t expect to always be happy, I simply accept what is. And that acceptance is key. This is what self-love is all about, really, acceptance and the ability to love yourself right where you are."

Gabrielle Bernstein, author, said:

"Choosing happiness is the path of least resistance."

Aristotle said:

"Happiness is a state of activity."

Dr. Shefali Tsabary, psychologist and author, said:

"Only when we fill our own need and feel satiated from within can we truly be fulfilled and happy."

Eleanor Roosevelt said:

"Someone once asked me what I regarded as the three most important requirements for happiness. My answer was: A feeling that you have been honest with yourself and those around you; a feeling that you have done the best you could both in your personal life and in your work; and the ability to love others."

What's great about all these definitions is that commonalities start emerging. Shirley MacLaine and Michael J. Fox tell us to accept life's situations and to accept uncertainty as a natural part of life. And the greater we are able to do that, the greater we can lean into happiness. Mastin Kipp tells us it's ok to not strive to be happy, but accept whatever we're feeling. He hints at an important concept, which is that we so often try to fix things and get to be "happy" or "at peace" or "over a situation," but sometimes we need to acknowledge what we're feeling (whatever that is). What you often find is that acknowledgement will allow you to move into the "happy space" more quickly because your emotions aren't trying to get your attention. Your emotions aren't screaming at you, telling you that you're sad or angry. You've already begun the work of processing it.

Lastly, Aristotle shares a crucial part of happiness, which is staying active. How many "happy" people do you know who sit at home all day, everyday? They might be content or "ok" temporarily, but are they truly thriving in happiness? Happiness is often found in the doing of what you're passionate about and in building connections that are meaningful to you. Research has supported this with findings showing that strong social support is correlated with a number of positive outcomes. You might be in a rut now and you might have moments where you lose your connection to life, but you always have the opportunity to rebuild that connection.

So now it's your turn to begin finding the happiness in you. What brings you joy? Maybe it's a night in watching TV. Maybe it's a night out at a new restaurant in town. Maybe it's staying up late watching a movie with your significant other. Maybe it depends on your mood. Wherever your happiness resides, go enjoy it. And tell us which of these definitions of happiness resonated with you most. Leave a comment and let us know how you define happiness.

Rubin Khoddam(link is external) is a PhD student in Clinical Psychology at the University of Southern California whose research and clinical work focuses on substance use issues andresilience. He founded a website, Psych Connection(link is external), with the goal of connecting ideas, people, research, and self-help to better connect you to yourself and those around you. You can follow Rubin on Twitter by clicking here(link is external)!

An average (or, mean) happiness can only be defined if happiness is a differentiable function in whatever dimension we are discussing (such as over time). I salute anyone who can establish differentiability. I, alas, do not think it is differentiable: a disaster, or a sudden rejoice, seems to me to most often occur "out of the blue". But I can't prove this. :-) That could be a project for a gifted student! 

Dear Marcel,

Your question is absolutely interesting, as gives us the chance to compare so many different positions. I reply according to my limited knowledge on biodiversity and species.

Since we are talking about animals (which we are, as human beings), I would stick with a couple of sentences by Schopenhauer:

"Happiness is not perfect and positive, should only expect a state comparatively less painful”

and

“Life therefore oscillates like a pendulum from right to left, suffering from boredom, and these are the two elements which it is made".

So, if happiness is the lack of boredom and suffering, we should understand when this happens.

Since it is difficult to reason on animals (as we still cannot read their minds), we should probably refer to human behaviour (probably the only one we can observe). Though cats purr when they are cuddled, I would avoid an excessive humanization of any animal’s behaviour (apart from the human being).

Keeping the reasoning at a simple level, I would say that an animal is happy when he feels (knows?) that he has no troubles satisfying his needs. This would probably prevent that living being from falling into 'pain' (pain because he is hungry, cold, etc.).

Things get more complicated when throw 'boredom' into the 'happiness' equation.

First of all, can animals feel bored? Humans can, for sure. What about ants? They apparently don't experience boredom. Leaving insects aside, and focusing on animals of relevant dimensions, let's say mammals because of the structure of our brain, we should explore what do we 'feel' in our spare time. Meaning by this the time we spend not satisfying our needs nor sleeping.

Since we cannot read the minds of other animals, I am afraid we are supposed to rely on Science. As human beings, we feel excited-happy when some serotonin or endorphin is released in our body/brain (please correct me if I am wrong, I am just tracing this information back from my years at high school). Probably, we could trace the release of the same substances in animals' body, observing when this happens. This of course can't be done for every species, still could be a way to move forward.

This approach would probably imply that when serotonin-endorphin is not released, or this is not present in a body above certain levels, that animal is feeling somewhat 'bored'. Though I would not agree with this, we should then find common ground on what 'happiness' means (both for humans and other animals).

I hope this can make some sense, I have been glad to give my little contribution.

Again, this is a challenging question, thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts!

Cheers,

Umberto

Dear Marcel,

I would like to experience and not to determine happiness. The most problematic quality of our race is that we talk too much, often in vain.

Perhaps health status can be used as a proxy of happiness?

Dear Marcel, see the fable and the comments in the link below: “The Power of Stupidity; The Scorpion and the Frog” by Giancarlo Livraghi, 2007.

http://www.gandalf.it/stupid/scorpion.htm

ZOO animals can be in an outstanding physical shape, but are they truly happy?

Perhaps some, but then why?

Of course, dear Marcel! We humans can make tools that do the work for us. Besides, I agree with Teilhard de Chardin when he proposes that humans evolve faster because, instead of waiting for "useful" mutations that will adapt, we just make a new tool! 

Thanks to this ease in tool development we don't have to work as much as other species. I am quite happy with that, as part of a species, I mean... :-)

I know many will think that it is the other way around, and that other species just lie there, eat and sleep, and that is a happier life.

I find my human life a happier one because it is based on invention and is full of challenge. 

My best, Lilliana

If all individual happinesses are equal, the average happiness will be equal to the individual happiness. The standard deviation of happiness will be zero. Bio diversity or not, the uniqueness of every individual will never result to an average happiness that is equal to the individual happiness. But, perhaps, biodiversity may be directly proportionate to the magnitude of the standard deviation of happiness. Cheers! Be happy you are different. 

With the stats, you assume you know already what happiness is, right? The question therefore is whether happiness can be adequately sampled before starting the stats, right? E.g. how to quantify a reaction norm of so-called happiness, where an adequate measure of happiness is plotted against an environmental factor?

Perhaps there exist environments where an individual/population/species is so-called happier than what is currently realized?

Dear Marcel,

How can you assess the happiness of a great tit or a great tit population? In case of humans, this is a bit easier. For some, happiness can be measured in the quantity of consumed beer or other drinks.  

Marcel, I may not have directly stated it, but the sample will pertain to the individual that experiences happiness, not to happiness directly.

About environment: I live in a splendid Caribbean island where it never snows, with beautiful vistas, and great weather all year around, and where things are not so expensive. I have a great job, friends, books... But we are in the midst of an economic crisis so acute and complex that has been all over the international newspapers and has been considered even worse that the economic crisis in Greece. The climate environment is great, the financial climate is really bad. We are on the verge of drastic unhappiness, whether we go and sit on an awesome beach, or not.

Maybe what can be measured is our ability or our conditions to be happy, parting from the premise that we are one of those species that can be "happy". First, you would have to define happiness; then you must find those species that have happiness potential; then you check what are the conditions for happiness for each of such species, always comparing them to the species that do not have a happiness potential.

We humans have a different element: our happiness is to a great degree "imaginary". We thrive on symbolic possessions and delight in immaterial joys. So you would have to determine how do the different "happinesses" compare as higher or lower happinesses, etc.

Do we need a brain to be happy? Do we need a certain habitat? A Chinese take-out dinner service for free? A car? A memory of the past? A mother? Poor amoebas lack all these things...

I'm joking, Marcel, but I'm just pointing to the complications in establishing comparative elements for your mental experiment. 

But I'm having fun with your very good question. To put happiness in question is excellent.

My best, Lilliana

I hope this isn't off-topic, but I believe all species experience happiness. We just may not recognize it because the difference lies in how it is experienced and in the quality which varies in degree many times each day. My response is related to the variations between the diversity that exists between.people. An experience I had when I worked at a state institution for the developmentally disabled might help to explain my point. As a psychologist and behavioral treatment director I was showing some government officials our unit where the most profoundly mentally retarded residents (that is the term used at that time) lived. Many were in a vegetative state, others suffered from hydrocephalus and could not really move. However, when someone entered the unit, we would often see residents smile and hear sounds indicating some type of pleasure.

One of the officials said to me something about the waste of money to work with the residents on daily living skills when it could take years just to teach them to pick up a cup and drink.I had enough self-control to not say what I was thinking.  He then said,(as if it justified his comments) that  the people in that unit had no quality of life. That was enough to deplete my self-control and I made some comments that I won't repeat. However, I was instructed to apologize which I did by a letter that was actually in the form of a question.

I asked the person how he knew the residents he saw had no quality of life. I asked him to think about what quality of life means and what makes up the quality in his life. I then asked him to consider the possibility of the most profoundly disabled person he saw having the same (or more) happiness and quality of life as he has, simply by somebody walking into the unit he is on and maybe smiling at him.

One of my specialty areas is in Intellectual Disabilities. I strongly believe that the purpose to their lives is as important as anyone's. They also have much to teach us if we listen. I apologize for the length of this, however, happiness and quality of life are all relative to our own situations.

Dear Steve,

Your remarks are very relevant! It's often difficult to judge how other humans feel, even if you would be in contact with them for years, but there are some subtle signs tht might provide hints about feelings/happiness.

In research, the vast majority of the scientists will meet individuals (e.g. wildlife animals) for a couple of second, a couple of minutes or a couple of days in their lifetime (e.g. when they are trapped and handled), which also would imply that it should be very complicated to study happiness in these conditions?

Wow, this was a fantastic question. I've thought about this myself. 

And Bruce, what is your opinion concerning the answer to that question?

Does the process of adaptation increase happiness? Does maladaptation decrease happiness? Is happiness linked to the state of adaptation?

Why should competition as a mechanism of adaptation increase happiness, and is the scale of analysis important, e.g. few are happy at the cost of many that remain unhappy?

Species-associated 'Karma'?

Animals have different personality profiles as humans, so why not 'karma'?

For instance, within species some birds are more kind than other birds, some chimps are more kind than other chimps, etc.… and there is all this reasoning about reincarnation and payback...

Just for fun, you can also put the question in a different perspective: If "happiness" is a kind of sensation or emotion associated to the lack of awareness of one's own death, then Homo spiens sapiens could be in the bottom of this hypothetical classification. By the way, I think that the adaptation don't increase any "happiness" of species, but just improve their fitness. The only aim of the life seems to be the conservation of itself, through a kind of pleonasm of shapes and ways. In this context, any form of happiness could play a role only if offering an advantage on conservation.

Fine, but living beings are driven by 'Awards' in an operent conditioning setting so there must be some kind of link between a (short-term/long-term) feeling of 'happiness' and 'fitness'?

Yes, you are right. This point remember me a very nice explanation from Schopenhauer about how life "attract" individuals to the sexuality, in order to create new "copies" by reproduction. By using "pleasure" or "love", just as stimulus in order to guarantee the generation of new cohortes. Is a simplification, of course, but is a good philosophical intuition, especially considering when was coined.

Maybe one key is related to your clarification: Differences between short-term and long-term feeling of happiness... Which one is more associated to the happiness? A serie of discontinuous short-term "sensations"?

I think animals can feel emotionally happy as humans, but then again how to demonstrate this scientifically given that scientists do not have direct access to feelings expressed in other beings?

Access to the feeling of happiness: Imagine that a scientist would never have the personal feeling of so-called 'happiness', could the scientist ever imagine its existence?

Scientists can only study was they can measure therefore mainly focusing on numbers/quantities ignoring individual happiness in wildlife studies?

Should an 'unhappy' wildlife population be considered 'maladaptive' from a mental point of view?

Is “happiness” an anthromorphic, anthrocentric characteristic that we are ascribing to non-humans? (I think I am using the right words!!)

What are the determinants of happiness? Desires maybe?

Is the question a bit Western-centric perhaps?

However, happiness, defined as bliss (nirvana) may be attained by extinguishing desires.

I am not sure about my position on this theme.

C. Lewis Kausel